Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved that the City Council adopt Attach- ment A as Council Bill 4960, with the following revisions on page 6 of that ordinance, as follows: ? Eugene Code 9.7820(1)(c) At least 10 days 30 days prior to the date the council considers the Planning Director’s recommendation, notice of the application that contains the street address or other easily understood geographical reference to the property, the Planning Director’s recommendation and the date and time the council will consider the recommendations shall be mailed to: 1. The applicant; 2. Owners and occupants of properties located within 100 feet 500 feet of the perimeter of the subject property; and 3. The neighborhood group or community organization officially recognized by the City Council that includes the area of the subject property. Councilor Clark offered a friendly amendment in the interest of responding to the request from Santa Clara by adding the following language to EC 9.7820(2)(d)(3): ? Posted in four public places in the City for two successive weeks prior to the hear- ing date. One of the postings shall be located on the application site and two more posted at the nearest intersections of arterials and/or collectors within the boundaries of the affected neighborhood organization(s), if applicable. The maker and second accepted the friendly amendment. Councilor Clark asked if the language regarding extraterritorial annexations would by de facto create a policy that would force city residents to develop septic tanks. Steve Nystrom, Principal Planner for the Planning and Development Department (PDD), responded that the ordinance could not change anything in this regard. Councilor Bettman asserted that extraterritorial extensions were not part of the statute. She averred that residents who live in the River Road/Santa Clara area who were concerned about annexations did not understand that the implications of extraterritorial extensions were “far worse for them.” She thought having two attachments was “a little confusing.” She felt Attachment B was “far superior.” She asked if the sections that referred to such extensions could be deleted so that extraterritorial annexations would be dealt with “in a more circumspect way.” City Attorney Emily Jerome said it would be possible to do so but it was not just a matter of deleting that particular section as there were other sections throughout the ordinance that referenced extraterritorial extensions. She thought the subject should be revisited at some point because although there were not State statutes that picked up where the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission left off regarding extraterritorial extensions, the boundary commission did have jurisdiction over them. She underscored that it was within the council’s purview to revisit the extensions at a later time. She added that she was uncertain whether staff would be comfortable bifurcating the issues at this time. Councilor Bettman reiterated her question. City Attorney Glenn Klein responded that the question was whether the attorneys would know with a high degree of certainty that they were removing all of the sections that were necessary and were not increasing confusion by removing something that was referred to in another part of the ordinance. He suggested that one option would be to pass the ordinance as presented at the current meeting and direct staff to return with an ordinance in January that would delete the portions Councilor Bettman wanted deleted. He reiterated that it was inadvisable not to take action at all at this time. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 14 Regular Meeting